Although the debate on terrorism has been particularly heated in recent decades, terrorism is not a new phenomenon and has been used since the beginning of history. However, it is quite difficult to define terrorism. Depending on how one evaluates terrorism, it can be defined as a tactic or a strategy, a crime or a sacred duty, a heinous act or a justified response to oppression. Terrorism uses coercive force with many of the benefits of military force, but with only a fraction of the cost and because of the small size of covert operations, it is difficult for governments to truly deter or defend against terrorist organizations. Terrorism has thus become one of the most threatening phenomena for citizens around the world and a concern for many governments and international organizations. Several important debates about the effectiveness of terrorism have therefore emerged and there are a number of essays and studies that attempt to determine whether or not terrorism has been a successful strategy of coercion. Among political scientists, there are currently two opposing opinions on this topic. Some researchers argue that terrorism is increasing around the world because it works and is particularly effective against democracies because the electorate is generally very sensitive to civilian casualties caused by terrorist attacks, which can lead to its leaders to make concessions to terrorist groups. Authoritarian governments, on the other hand, respond only to the preferences of the ruling elite and are therefore less likely to give in to terrorist demands in response to civilian casualties. Other researchers argue that when looking at the number of terrorist attacks and their underlying objectives, there is actually little public support and military capacity to defeat governments. In the long term, current terrorist organizations will therefore fail to achieve their objectives. This is particularly the case when these organizations target civilians and civilian locations. Cases like the Russian apartment building bombings of 1999 (or other cases like the 9/11 attacks or the terrorist attacks of the First and Second Intifada) show that countries shoot targets policies of the terrorist groups responsible for such acts and the consequences of these acts. attacks and not their stated objectives. Targeted countries will view the deaths of their citizens as proof that terrorists want to harm society and the public, even though there may be other underlying reasons, and are therefore disinclined to cooperate or make any concessions..